Well, here we go again, Round Two...

Originally Posted by crotalus01

Can someone explain the argument they are going to use to try and overturn the law? I don't get it as owners can choose to ban guns on their premises if they so choose...

It's simple, they are too friggin lazy to post a sign so they want the gov't to do it for them.

Would they use stories like this one too?


Retired Va. police officer’s gun discharges in restaurant, 3 injured - Kingsport Times-News Online

Originally Posted by benchpresspower

It's simple, they are too friggin lazy to post a sign so they want the gov't to do it for them.

It has nothing to do with laziness. This is about greed on their part. If they post, they risk alienating a portion of their clientele and lose some business. If they don't post, they may also lose a much smaller part of their customers, but risk filling seats with customers that won't be consuming their highest profit margin item, alcoholic beverages. Either way, the outcome potentially costs them money.

If they can get the law overturned and go back to the status quo, they don't make anyone mad, and HCP holders will have to go back to leaving the gun at home or in the car and they can potentially sell them drinks.

No, this is all about the money. Every thing else they may claim is just a smokescreen.

NRA: Get you lazy ass lawyers down here and help defend this case. And yes I am a LIFE MEMBER so I can say what i want and they just have to take it. They need to be involved in every case no matter where it is at. They spend enough on postage recruiting new members to defend about all these cases. I will and always have supported the NRA but their support of us is sometimes lacking for political reasons. They choose only the fights they are sure they can win.

Originally Posted by HexHead

It has nothing to do with laziness. This is about greed on their part. If they post, they risk alienating a portion of their clientele and lose some business. If they don't post, they may also lose a much smaller part of their customers, but risk filling seats with customers that won't be consuming their highest profit margin item, alcoholic beverages. Either way, the outcome potentially costs them money.

If they can get the law overturned and go back to the status quo, they don't make anyone mad, and HCP holders will have to go back to leaving the gun at home or in the car and they can potentially sell them drinks.

No, this is all about the money. Every thing else they may claim is just a smokescreen.

It is about money, pure and simple. Anybody that makes a living selling alcohol to a driving public has no consideration for their safety.

Bump for TGO David. This has really been flying under the radar since that initial announcement of the date.

Originally Posted by HexHead

Bump for TGO David. This has really been flying under the radar since that initial announcement of the date.

A lack of response shouldn't indicate a lack of interest. I don't always reply when I'm waiting for more information from other parties.

Originally Posted by Worriedman

It is about money, pure and simple. Anybody that makes a living selling alcohol to a driving public has no consideration for their safety.

Ever hear of a designated driver? Your statement is akin to assuming that because I carry a pistol I am going to start shooting it at any second.

Not everyone goes to a bar or restaurant and drinks regardless of being armed or not.

Originally Posted by Mike.357

Ever hear of a designated driver? Your statement is akin to assuming that because I carry a pistol I am going to start shooting it at any second.

Not everyone goes to a bar or restaurant and drinks regardless of being armed or not.

Having worked, and spent some time in a number of "bars" over the years, I can count on one hand the number of actual "designated drivers" I have ever encountered.

Establishments that serve alcohol for a living are interested in sales and profits. Remember the statement by our friend Adam Dread, about not wanting non-drinkers taking up seats in his bars? By their very existence, a "bar" hopes to pour as much hooch down the necks of their customers as possible. It is how they keep the lights on, and their payments made.

Originally Posted by TGO David

A lack of response shouldn't indicate a lack of interest. I don't always reply when I'm waiting for more information from other parties.

I just wanted to make sure you saw it since we were discussing it on Sat.

It's curious that the Tennessean hasn't been beating the drum with this coming up in a couple of weeks now. Unless they are convinced they have nothing to worry about with this change in the legal team, as in "the fix is in"?